William McKinnedy, III v. Cecil Reynold, No. 10-6456 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6456 WILLIAM CLAYTON MCKINNEDY, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MRS. CECIL REYNOLDS, Warden at Kershaw Correctional Institution and et al.; MR. ROBERT E. WARD, a/k/a Bob Ward; JON OZMINT; MARK SANFORD; MIKE FAIR; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER; MS. MARY COLEMAN; MS. SANDRA BOWIE; MS. A. HARDIN; MRS. A. SELLERS; JEROME ARMSTRONG; MR. SYLVESTA ROBINSON, Investigator; JAMES WAKELEY; BECKWITH, NFN; JAMES BAYTES; ROBERT HUGGINS, a/k/a Bob Huggins; JERRY WASHINGTON; T. SMITH; MRS. PRICE, Contraband Sgt of Palmetto; SEWARD; NFN DUBOSE; PATRICIA CAUDLE, Officer at Medical; DAVID M. TATARSKY; ROBERT WESLEY JACOBS; OSCAR FAULKENBERRY; CAPTAIN THOMAS, Kershaw Correctional Institution; DANIEL J. MURPHY, Inspector General of SCDC; LINDA J. MARTIN, OPNS, Secretary General Counsel, SCDC s headquarters; DENNIS PATTERSON, SCDC General Counsel Office, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:08-cv-03169-HMH) Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 2, 2010 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Clayton McKinnedy, III, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: William Clayton McKinnedy, III, appeals the district court s orders substantially accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. have reviewed the record and find no reversible We error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. McKinnedy Feb. 5, 2010). v. Reynolds, No. 6:08-cv-03169-HMH (D.S.C. We deny McKinnedy s motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED Because the case was dismissed on summary judgment, the district court did not adopt the magistrate judge s recommendation to count the dismissal as a strike for purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2006). 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.